Here and Gone

REFERENCES

1. Unless otherwise stated, all photographs are courtesy of the author.
2. 1. Anderson Eddie

   . 1978. Visual resource assessment: Local perceptions of familiar natural environments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
3. 1. Appleton Jay

   . 1975. The Experience of Landscape. London: Wiley.
4. 1. Berlyne D. E.

   1963. Complexity and incongruity variables as determinants of exploratory choice and evaluative ratings. Canadian Journal of Psychology 17(3):274–290.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
5. 1. Buyhoff Gregory J.,
   2. Wellman John D.,
   3. Harvey H.,
   4. Fraser R. A.

   1978. Landscape architects’ interpretations of people’s landscape preferences. Journal of Environmental Management 6(3):255–262.

   OpenUrlWeb of Science
6. 1. Daniel Terry C.,
   2. Vining Joanne

   . 1983. Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality. In Behavior and the Natural Environment, ed. Altman Irwin, Wohlwill Joachim F., 29–83. New York: Plenum.
7. 1. Day H.

   1967. Evaluation of subjective complexity, pleasingness, and interestingness for a series of random polygons varying in complexity. Perception and Psychophysics 2(7):774–681.

   OpenUrl
8. 1. Ellsworth John C.

   1982. Visual assessment of rivers and marshes: An examination of the relationship of visual units, perceptual variables, and preference. Unpublished master’s thesis. Logan, UT: Utah State University.
9. 1. Gimblett H. Randy,
   2. Itami Robert M.,
   3. Fitzgibbon John E.

   1985. Mystery in an information processing model of landscape preference. Landscape Journal 4(2):87–95.

   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
10. 1. Hammitt William E.

    1978. Visual and user preferences for a bog environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
11. 1. Hands Denise E.,
    2. Brown Robert D.

    2002. Enhancing visual preference of ecological rehabilitation sites. Landscape and Urban Planning 58(1):57–70.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
12. 1. Herbert Eugene J.

    1981. Visual resource analysis: prediction and preferences in Oakland County, Michigan. Unpublished master’s thesis. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
13. 1. Herzog Thomas R.

    1984. A cognitive analysis of preference for field-and-forest environments. Landscape Research 9(1):10–16.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
14. 1. Herzog Thomas R.

    1989. A cognitive analysis of preference for urban nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology 9(1):27–43.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
15. 1. Herzog Thomas R.

    1992. A cognitive analysis of preference for urban spaces. Journal of Environmental Psychology 12(3):237–248.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
16. 1. Herzog Thomas R.,
    2. Kropscott Laura

    . 2004. Legibility, mystery, and visual access as predictors of preference and perceived danger in forest settings without pathways. Environment and Behavior 36(5):659–677.

    OpenUrlAbstract
17. 1. Herzog Thomas R.,
    2. Barnes Gregory J.

    1999. Tranquility and preference revisited. Journal of Environmental Psychology 19(2):171–181.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
18. 1. Herzog Thomas R.,
    2. Bosley Patrick J.

    1992. Tranquility and preference as affective qualities of natural environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 12(2):115–127.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
19. 1. Herzog Thomas R.,
    2. Kaplan Rachel,
    3. Kaplan Stephen

    . 1976. The prediction of preference for familiar urban places. Environment and Behavior 8(4):627–645.

    OpenUrlAbstract
20. 1. Jorgensen Anna,
    2. Hitchmough James,
    3. Calvert Tig

    . 2002. Woodland spaces and edges: Their impact on perception of safety and preference. Landscape and Urban Planning 60(3):135–150.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
21. 1. Kaplan Rachel

    . 1973. Predictors of environmental preference: Designers and “clients.” In EDRA 4: Environmental Design Research, ed. Preiser Wolfgang F. E., 265–274. Stroudsberg, PA: Dowden, Hutchison, and Ross.
22. 1. Kaplan Rachel

    . 1975. Some methods and strategies in the prediction of preference. In Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions, and Resources, ed. Zube Ervin H., Brush Robert O., Fabos Julius Gy., 92–101. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson, & Ross.
23. 1. Kaplan Rachel,
    2. Herbert Eugene J.

    1987. Cultural and subcultural comparisons in preferences for natural settings. Landscape and Urban Planning 14: 281–293.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
24. 1. Kaplan Rachel,
    2. Kaplan Stephen

    . 1989. The Experience of Nature. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
25. 1. Kaplan Rachel,
    2. Kaplan Stephen,
    3. Brown Terry

    . 1989. Environmental preference: A comparison of four domains of predictors. Environment and Behavior 21(5):509–530.

    OpenUrlAbstract
26. 1. Kaplan Stephen

    . 1975. An informal model for the prediction of preference. In Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions, and Resources, ed. Zube Ervin H., Brush Robert O., Fabos Julius Gy., 92–101. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross.
27. 1. Kaplan Stephen,
    2. Kaplan Rachel,
    3. Wendt John S.

    1972. Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perception & Psychophysics 12(4):354–356.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
28. 1. Lynch Kevin

    . 1960. The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
29. 1. Medina Augusto O.

    1983. A visual assessment of children’s and environmental educators’ urban residential preference patterns. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
30. 1. Mustafa Kamal Bin Mohd-Shariff

    . 1994. A cross-cultural comparison of visual landscape preferences for the natural environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University.
31. 1. Nassauer Joan I.

    1988. The aesthetics of horticulture: Neatness as a form of care. HortScience 23(6):973–977.

    OpenUrl
32. 1. Palmer James F.,
    2. Hoffman Robin E.

    2001. Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments. Landscape and Urban Planning 54(1–4): 149–161.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
33. 1. Pitt David G.,
    2. Zube Ervin H.

    1987. Management of natural environments. In Handbook of Environmental Psychology, ed. Stokols Daniel, Altman Irwin, 1009–1042. New York: Wiley.
34. 1. Stamps Arthur E.

    2004. Mystery, complexity, legibility, and coherence: a meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology 24(1):1–16.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
35. 1. Tveit Mari,
    2. Ode Åsa,
    3. Fry Gary

    . 2006. Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landscape Research 31(3):229–255.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
36. 1. Vitz Paul C.

    1966. Preference for different amounts of visual complexity. Behavioral Science 11(2):105–114.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
37. 1. Wohlwill Joachim F.

    1976. Environmental aesthetics: The environment as a source of affect. In Human Behavior and the Environment: Advances in Theory and Research Vol. 1, ed. Altman Irwin, Wohlwill Joachim F., 37–86. New York: Plenum.

    OpenUrl
38. 1. Woodcock David

    . 1982. A functionalist approach to environmental preference. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
39. 1. Ying-Hung Li

    . 1996. An integrated model of scenic beauty assessment for forest management. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Clemson, SC: Clemson University.
40. 1. Zube Ervin H.,
    2. Sell James L.,
    3. Taylor Jonathan G.

    1982. Landscape perception: Research, application and theory. Landscape Planning 9(1):1–33.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science